Back in the late 1980s I made my living from writing national occupational standards and developing NVQs. \u00a0It was an exciting time to be\u00a0involved\u00a0in vocational education and training.<\/p>\n
We were developing ‘standards of a new kind’ and the focus was on describing the outcomes of excellent occupational competence. \u00a0Standards and the qualifications based on them were demanding – reflecting real occupational competence. \u00a0The employment coalition was very much on board with this attempt to define ‘high’ performance.<\/p>\n
However there was a problem.<\/p>\n
Because\u00a0the standards were demanding,\u00a0relatively\u00a0few people were able to achieve them. At least not right from the ‘get go’. \u00a0And\u00a0because\u00a0we were pretty exhaustive in specifying high\u00a0performance\u00a0in all situations that the role holder might have to handle (including\u00a0infrequent but critical contingencies) the range of the\u00a0qualification\u00a0meant\u00a0that\u00a0they\u00a0might take years to master. \u00a0Just imagine that. \u00a0Taking years of training and experience to be recognised as ‘fully qualified’. \u00a0What is it that Gladwell\u00a0says\u00a0about 10 000 hours?<\/p>\n
However the ‘standards of a new kind’ came under pressure. \u00a0People were not getting\u00a0qualified\u00a0quickly enough. \u00a0In the league tables that compared ‘qualifications’ between the UK and its major competitors we were falling \u00a0behind. \u00a0Awarding bodies were not shifting enough certificates and as a result were not making money. \u00a0Something had to change. \u00a0And it did.<\/p>\n
From my point of view the ‘new standards’ were rapidly diluted. \u00a0Assessment processes were undermined. \u00a0The qualification industry became a mass production unit instead of a crucible for excellence. \u00a0Within \u00a0a few years we had got\u00a0ourselves\u00a0a much more ‘qualified’ workforce. \u00a0But real competence, mastery of a trade, was hard to find.<\/p>\n
And this is the situation that faces standards setting bodies at the moment. \u00a0Unless you can convince funders that you will develop a qualification that finds an immediate market and can operate at appropriate volumes you are\u00a0unlikely\u00a0to get funded. \u00a0Instead of qualifications driving up standards in the workplace they\u00a0often reflect a diluted version of it.<\/p>\n
By the mid 1990s I had\u00a0completely\u00a0lost my\u00a0stomach\u00a0for such work. \u00a0Writing standards with little or no\u00a0aspirational\u00a0content. \u00a0No serious attempts to define outcomes that indicated the presence of real skill and experience. \u00a0Little investment in progression routes to excellence.<\/p>\n
But the most insidious impact of the new qualifications regime is that ‘we are all competent now’. \u00a0We can no longer rely on\u00a0qualifications\u00a0to be accurate indicators of real skill, quality and experience. \u00a0And this impacts not just on the economy but on communities too.<\/p>\n